If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as “medical”] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters (– Continued).

It’s going to be sweet when the Right — with our “super majority” after 2010’s elections and thereafter — contend fully with the damaging fallout from the Harry Reid/Barack Obama/Democrats’ bomb. But action in this substantial regard should not wait for future months.

There’s substantial conflict with the Reid/Obama/Pelosi “Healthcare” Bomb and with the U.S. Constitution and along with tossing out the bad personnel, we as a nation need to also toss out the bad personnel’s horrible work:

…The real way to resist DC is not by begging politicians and judges in Washington to allow us to exercise our rights…it’s to exercise our rights whether they want to give us “permission” to or not.

Nullification – state-level resistance to unconstitutional federal laws – is the way forward.

When a state ‘nullifies’ a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned.

It’s peaceful, effective, and has a long history in the American tradition. It’s been invoked in support of free speech, in opposition to war and fugitive slave laws, and more. Read more on this history here.

Regarding nullification and health care, there’s already a growing movement right now. Led by Arizona, voters in a number of states may get a chance to approve State Constitutional Amendments in 2010 that would effectively ban national health care in their states. Our sources here at the Tenth Amendment Center indicate to us that we should expect to see 20-25 states consider such legislation in 2010.

20 States resisting DC can do what calling, marching, yelling, faxing, and emailing has almost never done. Stop the feds dead in their tracks (– Continued).

I hope this complaint isn’t another one of Graham’s false fronts — he has a history of making complaints based upon sound if not often excellent reasoning — (example, his position on the nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, his questioning of her when before the Senate Judiciary Committee, while Graham later voted to confirm her despite the objections he’d well identified prior to the vote) — while he later relents and abandons the complaints and votes to support that which he’d originally complained about; so let us all hope that Graham and other Senators will carry forward with a forceful response to this mess.

INGRAHAM: Webb and Warner, I’m just focusing on two of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. Where the heck were they?

GRAHAM: Well, all I can tell you is how do you explain to people back in Virginia or South Carolina that there’s one state in the nation where Medicaid enrollees will be paid for by the federal government? This deal that Ben Nelson was able to achieve, the bill requires Medicaid to expand. That’s a very big burden on states, because they have a matching portion of that, except in Nebraska. So what do you go back to Virginia and say?

INGRAHAM: They got nothing.

GRAHAM: We’re going to enroll…

INGRAHAM: What do they get?

GRAHAM: …more people on Medicaid. My state’s going to have to pay more money to meet that obligation, except for Nebraska, because he was the 60th vote. That’s not change anybody can believe in.

INGRAHAM: You see what I think, just as an analyst, putting my analyst hat on, you can’t really blame the liberals. This is what liberals do. They’re always trying to expand government. They always think they can tax people.

GRAHAM: Absolutely.

INGRAHAM: You know, people who make X amount of dollars and it will all be fine. That’s what liberals do. I focus on the moderate — so-called moderate Democrats. I believe there is no such thing as a moderate Democrat anymore, and this bill proves it, whether it’s Tester or Bob Casey or Warner or Webb or Lincoln or Pryor or any of these people. They are not fiscally conservative on any issue that matters. A seventh of the economy, Senator Graham.

GRAHAM: This bill is a travesty in the making for the American people. It’s $1.3 billion in increased costs. And they say it reduces the budget deficit by $132 billion. How do you get there? You got to assume we’re going to cut Medicare.

INGRAHAM: Oh, right, that’s going to happen.

GRAHAM: We haven’t cut Medicare by 10 cents. So we’re not going to cut Medicare over the next 10 years by $470 billion.

INGRAHAM: But wait, Senator Graham.

GRAHAM: Nor should we.

INGRAHAM: President Obama said it’s going to save $132 billion over 10 years. Look, the Congressional Budget Office, that’s what the Congressional Budget Office says. So what do you say?

GRAHAM: Well, if I put my budget together and I assumed I was going to win the lottery, I could do more. The Congressional Budget Office can’t be politicians. They can only look at numbers. The way they get it to deficit neutrality is to cut Medicare by $470 billion. The doctor fix, $274 billion of reductions to doctors are not accounted for. So, it’s not going to happen. It’s a false assumption.

INGRAHAM: Well, look, 18 specialty societies of medicine came out against this.

GRAHAM: Right.

INGRAHAM: We had the AMA, however, come out for it, along with hospital — certain hospital associations.

GRAHAM: Certain hospitals.

INGRAHAM: So how did that all happen? That was backroom deals, backroom negotiating. American people didn’t hear any of it.

GRAHAM: Well, how do you get Louisiana vote? How did you get the Nebraska vote? You did things for people to get them on board. It wasn’t about reforming health care. It’s about getting 60 votes. The goal was to pass something. We didn’t give a damn what it was. (– Continued).

So, come on, Senator Graham and other Republicans, act now about all this, disarm this Reid/Pelosi/Obama Ponzi Scheme bomb now.

…The fraud, deception, deceit and bribery occurring in Washington regarding Senator Ben Nelson’s vote for the ‘any’ health care bill is standard operating procedure. The way a President, Majority Leader in the Senate and the Speaker of the House of… Representatives do business would land any ‘average’ American citizen in prison!

I wasn’t a Member of Congress long when I learned this lesson. I was not supporting a major piece of legislation – and had been very vocal about it. I received a phone call from the Transportation Committee Chairman’s office, who offered me $15 million to help finish Interstate 485 around Charlotte. I had championed that road when I was Mayor and they knew it was important to me. I said my vote was not for sale. When politicians make such deals, in my opinion, they are compromising the integrity of their constituents who put their trust in them. So, what happened with Senator Ben Nelson from Nebraska, to change his mind about the health care bill, is not new.

First it has been reported that Senator Nelson was threatened by the President that if he did not vote for the ‘any’ health care bill, that Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska would be closed. (Change we can believe in?) Then the Senator was offered free Medicaid for Nebraska. (That means that you and the rest of us Americans will be paying for it.)

Playing ‘let’s make a deal’ with YOUR money is how those politicians flex their power egos and control your life. THINK: 537 people (House, Senate, President, Vice President) control the lives of 308 million Americans – plus those not yet born who will also have to keep on paying the bill.

You are now being lied to, deceived, manipulated and robbed of your hard earned money – money you and your family need. Next – higher taxes. You had better become active now! It’s Christmas – they don’t think you’re paying attention.

This health care bill is a momentous fraud. Those truly needing health care could be covered for a miniscule amount- compared to what this bill will cost you….

December 22, 2009 – WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

“I am incredibly concerned that the Democrats’ proposed individual mandate provision takes away too much freedom and choice from Americans across the country,” said Senator Ensign. “As an American, I felt the obligation to stand up for the individual freedom of every citizen to make their own decision on this issue. I don’t believe Congress has the legal authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”

“Forcing every American to purchase a product is absolutely inconsistent with our Constitution and the freedoms our Founding Fathers hoped to protect,” said Senator DeMint. “This is not at all like car insurance, you can choose not to drive but Americans will have no choice whether to buy government-approved insurance. This is nothing more than a bailout and takeover of insurance companies. We’re forcing Americans to buy insurance under penalty of law and then Washington bureaucrats will then dictate what these companies can sell to Americans. This is not liberty, it is tyranny of good intentions by elites in Washington who think they can plan our lives better than we can.” (– Continued.)